RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Cost-effectiveness of antigen testing for ending COVID-19 isolation
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.03.21.22272687
DO 10.1101/2022.03.21.22272687
A1 Sigal Maya
A1 James G. Kahn
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/21/2022.03.21.22272687.abstract
AB Background The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 led to a steep rise in transmissions. Recently, as public tolerance for isolation abated, CDC guidance on duration of at-home isolation of COVID-19 cases was shortened to five days if no symptoms, with no lab test requirement, despite more cautious approaches advocated by other federal experts.Methods We conducted a decision tree analysis of alternative protocols for ending COVID-19 isolation, estimating net costs (direct and productivity), secondary infections, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of input uncertainty.Results Per 100 individuals, five-day isolation had 23 predicted secondary infections and a net cost of $33,000. Symptom check on day five (CDC guidance) yielded a 23% decrease in secondary infections (to 17.8), with a net cost of $45,000. Antigen testing on day six yielded 2.9 secondary infections and $63,000 in net costs. This protocol, compared to the next best protocol of antigen testing on day five of a maximum eight-day isolation, cost an additional $1,300 per secondary infection averted. Antigen or polymerase chain reaction testing on day five were dominated (more expensive and less effective) versus antigen testing on day six. Results were qualitatively robust to uncertainty in key inputs.Conclusions A six-day isolation with antigen testing to confirm the absence of contagious virus appears the most effective and cost-effective de-isolation protocol to shorten at-home isolation of individuals with COVID-19.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse grant number 5R37DA015612-170. The funder did not play a role in the design of the study, and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, and in writing the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.Not ApplicableThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study was conducted using publicly available data IRB approval was not required.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.Not ApplicableI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Not ApplicableI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.Not ApplicableAll relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.